Forum Replies Created
you’re totally correct
however your original post was misleading
“So if you are a democrat.
Shorten “you are” with “you’re”, as in “So if you’re a democrat””
leading me to believe i had written
“So if you are a democrat.”
i did not go back to check my original post
that being said, this is a blog
most people dont pay attention to spelling (dont, don’t) errors or grammer or punctuations
chances are if you cant figure out i meant “you are” without my using an apostrophe, you wouldn understand what i wrote anyway
Don’t they mean the same thing?
I wasn’t bemoaning
I was gloatingMarch 5, 2020 9:41 pm at 9:41 pm in reply to: Can the severity of a sin be learned from the severity of the punishment? #1838134
There is a difference between severe and severity.
I said all along it is bad
My point is only that things we think are not so bad are actually worse.
Our compass is inaccurate if you will.
In truth every sin is so calamitous, we would pass out if we really understood.
But we don’t.
So there is no such a thing as ”a little sin”
In the hierarchy I personally know if left to my own devices id completely mess up the order. Because I would rate rape as from the worst sins.
But here I see the Chafetz Chaim saying it’s not. Other sins that I’d think are not so bad are actually much worse.
In no way does that equate with saying it’s OK to sin .
Gotta go now
Maybe more laterMarch 5, 2020 12:21 pm at 12:21 pm in reply to: Can the severity of a sin be learned from the severity of the punishment? #1837991
By the way
Do you mind telling me how you know when I post?
By me I have to do a search of this thread
It’s very frustratingMarch 5, 2020 12:16 pm at 12:16 pm in reply to: Can the severity of a sin be learned from the severity of the punishment? #1837990
I assume your post was written before my last post
If not then I don’t understand
You must find this line ” אם יפתנו היצר מחמת כעסו על פלוני שילך ויגנהו בפני אנשים ויוציא עליו שם רע, יתבונן בנפשו אלו היה היצר מפתהו לילך לבית הזונות, האם היה שומע לו?” Very puzzling! Of course people would Be ones/Mefatah whatt’s his question People say Motzi shem ra all the time of course they would do the not as bad aveira!
This is addressed in my last postMarch 5, 2020 10:25 am at 10:25 am in reply to: Can the severity of a sin be learned from the severity of the punishment? #1837921
I realized this morning a possible misconception in what I’m saying.
You are possibly viewing what I’m saying as follows.
Let’s give an arbitrary severity rating to two sins, from our own minds
So I’d say
לשון הרע 10
Now I come along and tell you לשון הרע is worse than rape
So basically I’m saying rape is maximum a 9
I’m a sicko.
But that’s not what I’m Saying.
Let’s start over
Let’s give an arbitrary severity rating to two sins, from our own minds
So I’d say
לשון הרע 10
Comes along to Torah and tells us, wrong!
Rape IS a 90 but לשון הרע is at least 91!!March 5, 2020 8:16 am at 8:16 am in reply to: Can the severity of a sin be learned from the severity of the punishment? #1837899
Lashon harah dosnt have onesh of maamon
It gets צרעתMarch 4, 2020 11:47 pm at 11:47 pm in reply to: Can the severity of a sin be learned from the severity of the punishment? #1837855
I guess we are talking different languages. The Chafetz Chaim says very clearly
It’s worse to be מוציא שם רע that a woman was מזנה then to be מאנס her.
Yes saying Rachel was מזנה is a bigger sin then being מאנס Rachel. Yes. Yes. Yes. It’s worse. Yes. Bigger. If he is a big למדן and he feels that he wants to sin between these two and he wants to do the smaller sin he would pick being מאנס the girl.
I don’t know how I can be more clear and unhesitating.
I’m getting lost in your example so I didn’t give clear answers.
Apply what I said to your example and yes. That’s what I’m saying.
But it’s not me saying it. It’s the Chafetz Chaim quoting a gemorah.
And it doesn’t seem to sit well with you. Hence your examples.
Which is exactly my point. ”our ” internal moral compass is sometimes at odds with the Torah’s moral compass.
If I gleaned anything from your example, it’s that you think it’s absurd to say the fellow downgraded his evil status by actually raping the girl.
It’s פשוט to you that that is worse. But that is exactly what the ח”ח is coming to oppose.
He is specifically addressing that.
He is saying it’s simple that nobody in his right mind would go be מזנה just because he is angry at his friend.
Yet he will say לשון הרע WHICH IS MUCH WORSE as evidenced from the fact that for being מוציא שם רע the punishment is worse then raping (end quote)
The ח”ח equated לשה”ר ומוציא שם רע
The ח”ח equated their worseness over אונס ומפתה
I don’t know why you are surprised at what I am saying.
How else can you possibly read the words of the ח”ח ??
I’m just reading.
I’m not at all bothered because I’ve learned long ago that my gut feelings often don’t line up with the Torah. So I suspend my own judgement quite easily.
So to me it seems odd.
Big deal! my puny brain obviously is missing a lot of information that the Torah has.
Sorry if I went long and redundant. I’m trying to be very clear so you don’t say I’m avoiding answering.
Yes! saying מוציא שם רע is worse than raping someone.
Clear enough?March 4, 2020 9:18 pm at 9:18 pm in reply to: Can the severity of a sin be learned from the severity of the punishment? #1837823
No you haven’t given me pause.
(as an aside, For some reason this thread does not show up by me in the recently active threads. That’s why I missed it last response. Now I had to search it up to see if you responded.)
Assuming that לשון הרע is not worse that מאנס he becomes less of an עבריין. Absolutely.
I’m not so sure that’s true though.
I would understand from the ח”ח/גמרא that לשה”רis also worse than being מאנס in which case he hasn’t really helped himself.
But I have no problem to say, if your rubric is correct, then he has lowered his sin level by actually being מאנס her.
That’s exactly what the ח”ח stated unambiguously
It’s worse to be מוציא שם רע than to be מאנס
Mathematically that is the same as saying it’s better to be מאנס then to be מוציא שם רע
Why would I hesitate to say that.? I’d just be quoting the ח”ח!
(I just think In your example I couldn’t answer that because the details didn’t add up.)
i hearMarch 4, 2020 2:51 pm at 2:51 pm in reply to: Can the severity of a sin be learned from the severity of the punishment? #1837641
Ubiq I just now saw that you answered.
Thats not an argument on ubiq, As I said from the onset that is generally how severity is determined, but as we have demonstarted there are no fewer than 25 exceptions .
So then I’m not sure your position.
”we generally assume that is so unless it doesn’t agree with mypersonal moral compass? ”
A person will either be meanes someone or motzi shem ra. you would tell him better to be meanes?
I will tell him neither
ר אלישיב כבר פסק ”הלעיטהו לרשע וימות ” א
Let him do what he wants, God will deal with him. You want to know in din which is worse?
The חפץ חיים clearly states מוציא שם רע is worse.
You are maintaining that he is now better than you first thought because he is no longer being motzei shem ra, is this correct?
no. אין אדם משים עצמו רשע I don’t believe he did the עבירה so it remains מוציא שם רע
I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO HAPPY TO BE WRONG!!
secondly yabia you nailed trumps plan
”Bloomberg is too short. Americans love tall presidents.”
It’s called auto correct and not really caring So not worth the effort
Sorry it took you so many hours to figure it out
I hear, probably she is disgusted by seeing the grotesque costumes and activities they preform while singing.
(lest one get the wrong idea from my comments, I neither watched or listened to the game or the half time shows, but news of what goes on, gets around.)
Remember the Boston tea party?
Anil is a woman. It’s probably OK for her to her female singers
I’m responding to the stupid liberals
You can but why should I?
Your also a moron 😛🤪🤡🤡
Never mind what “this” means. Is it actually the migrants complaining
about how migrants are dealt with or is it American citizens?
the migrants actually seem to say that trump is very fair
Also, I disagree with the reason you give here for why people bring their children along
when attempting to move to another country (the alternative being what, exactly?).
Random, you mean this ?
I agree with you. That that is not the sole reason why they bring their children. Of course. They want to keep their family together.
But when they get caught and say you can’t punish me because then my child….
That’s when they are using their child as a human shield.
What did they think would happen to their children when they got caught? They knew the danger when they left their house. Deal with it or admit you were banking on the fact that you felt somewhat immune because you have kids with you ”aka human shields ”
I can’t see a third choice.
By the way you never answered my question.
You said ”you asked for this ”
I asked you, ”I asked for what? ”
I’m very bad at getting hints. I can think of way too many possibilities of what you could mean. The odds are against me guessing correctly. So how about you just tell me.
No, the law is on hold for a month (meaning they are not giving fines) and it’s being challenged in court
So many stores are still giving out plastic bags
Or if they will go for ”just one more” round of elections 🤣
Well according to your last post my answer to your question is
That’s a very vague question.
As per ubiq quoting the Oxford definition, yes
As per the medrash I’m referencing, no.
But that’s assuming you are referring to מידת סדום
As in כופין אותו על מידת סדום which is cases of זה נהנה וזה לא חסר.
When I said leading up to סדום I was referring to all types of illicit עריות and murder.
I was using it as a colloquial expression.
If you clarify your question bit more I’ll be happy to give a more direct answer
That is totally OK.
(I personally think he cares a tremendous amount about the nation, albeit because he believes him glory is tied to the success of America), but for. The purpose of the discussion I’ll grant you that he cares not a whit about anyone in the world besides himself and he will sell everyone and everything down the river for a drop more personal glory.
His policies VIs a VIs morality in interpersonal relationships are moral.
His opposition is the policy of godly destruction.
You vote for him.
(as an aside, when hashem has enough of the rampant homosexuality pushing in this country and decides to wipe it off the earth, how’s your welfare programs gonna help you out?
Or do you not believe that ”hashem hates immorality ”
Or do you just not care or think about tomorrow?
Never saw anything asking me to affirm their belief in the “Jerusalem Program” which is the official platform of the World Zionist Organization.
Where did I miss it?
I went back to look
It’s an innocuous looking check box above the signature line.
Reb Moshe says you need to vote
Rabbi miller says to vote for the candidate who will have more moral policies.
Not which candidate themselves are more moral. Rather who will further morality in the country.
Not who will further lead us down the road to sedom
When faced with a choice of a president who will give money to the poor, and programs for the poor, and sent controlled apartments for the indigent, but will legalize gay marriage and abortion on demand
Vs a president who will cut and or eliminate all those programs, but will hold on as much as he can, to marriage being a man and a woman, hold on to the fact that an unborn fetus has the status of a live human,
We are mechuyav to choose the one who will cut the programs.
We are supposed to worry about כבוד שמים and let הקב”ה worry about the cash.
Somehow many people have it reversed.
I’ll worry about the cash and let God worry about morality in the world.
Not even people who feel entitled to call others idiots without explanation and then hide behind their comfort level.”
Umm, that was 2 separate people.
”Oh. My. Gosh. This has got to be *the* most ignorant, incorrectand uninformed comment yet. ”
Written by you to me.
point #2 – I don’t want to have a back and forth with you.”
Sorry. I just don’t like your style and I am pretty sure I am entitled to engage per my comfort level
Written by you to me
You may want to spend some time discussing your split personality disorder with your group therapy rather than discussing some nameless posters opinion from the ywn coffee room.
“ maybe you just should refrain from commenting, at least on authors whom you don’t want to engage with”
Cute. I’m not sure what life is like for you in the 3D world but you don’t get that level of control over other people In here.
That’s absolutely correct (see! on point response, targeted to your statement)
However you are the one who wrote
I just don’t like your style and I am pretty sure I am entitled to engage per my comfort level.
I was just commenting if you only want to engage on your comfort level it would probably make sense to not engage someone who is beyond your comfort level.
See that? Another response that is on target and responding directly to your comment after trying to understand it.
I will grant you that my tone is snooty.
It’s very simple.
If I have a discussion of ideas, I try to keep my tone neutral. But as soon as it’s not a discussion but rather someone just calling me an idiot, well then it’s a different type of conversation.
I have no issue engaging in whatever style conversation the other person wants.
So if you want to have a conversation where the only thing is can you out snot the other side, I’m game for that too. It’s nothing personal.
Have a great shabbos
Nope. Nothing matters to me at all
Not even people who feel entitled to call others idiots without explanation and then hide behind their comfort level.
As others have pointed out here
Most people comment here expecting to be critiqued and challenged.
If that’s above your comfort level maybe you just should refrain from commenting, at least on authors whom you don’t want to engage with
One thing I’ll grant you.
You are absolutely correct
I have no respect for opinions given as ”I say this so it must be so and I don’t need to explain or respond to a challenge ”
The only support I will bring for this is the fact that I quoted ONE sentence, and you start listing ALL the points you made in the previous posts and problems I MAY have been alluding to. Why not just hear what I said and think about it?
maybe because contrary to what you said
“are not concerned with whether or not you heard their point,”
i was actually trying to lock down your point of disagreement
since you have difficulty expressing it i was trying to help you out. sorry
I don’t have to bring it to anyone, we all were together when we read it.
who is we and what did “we” say?
so i went back
you believe that one day of emotional abuse is enough to be damaging for life and requires immediate intervention?
so if you saw a parent shouting at their kid in a supermarket, you’d call child protective services?
i mean if 1 day is enough, why stop there, maybe 1 incident?
I do believe that some statements really are so wrong that it doesn’t need to be explained.
as a poster (me) so succinctly posted on a different thread,
they may not have to, but they have to be able to be.
if you cant explain it when challenged, then you probably shot from the hip and really have no basis for what you said
Good to see you read all my comments on all threads.
So knowing I won’t try to prove myself wrong, to help you out, you helpfully provided me with an alternative.
How’s about you bring it to someone and let me know what they say?
Or better yet just tell me yourself since your so sure of yourself.
As I see it, there are four areas of my post you can be disagreeing with
1) emotional abuse can be life changing even from one days worth
2) physical abuse cannot inflict permanent harm in one day
3)we are not afraid of kids dying
4) most people do not think the way I posted.
Please feel free to let me know which choice or choices you go with.
Or perhaps you have a different issue which I missed. I’d love to hear about it.
This is why as frustrating as he may be, it’s enjoyable to argue with ubiq, (usually 😁) as wrong as I may think he is, and as sure of himself as he may think he is, he puts his cards on the table, he backs up what he says, he details his critique of what the other person said, and you can have an adult conversation.
As opposed to you are now the second one to offer a variety of
You are so wrong and you know it and it’s so simple why I don’t even have to say it.
You do realize that that is a generic argument that can be used by anyone at anytime for any topic on any side of the topic.
It’s about as substantive as a vacuum.
Question for you.
Which ”political rival ” did trump demand an investigation of?
My issue is that you should know by yourself that you’re wrong.
But I don’t. If I did I wouldn’t have said it in the first place.
Seems like you don’t know either, but realizing that my intellect is superior to yours, your asking me to do your work, since you are incapable of doing it.
You asked for this.
Is your next question “Does it say anywhere ‘war crime’ is only if it’s part of a war?”
NO I WASN’T GOING TO ASK THAT.
Geneva Conventions… civilians… armed conflict
“People coming across the border” are not involved in armed conflict (which is what the Geneva
Conventions apply to) and cannot be classed as non-civilians as opposed to their children.
Someone committing a crime, which he knows carries a certain punishment, who commits the crime while with his children so he can then say you can’t punish me because it will leave the children in a terrible predicament. That is classic human shield.
The classic use of “human shield” is as a military law term with a specific meaning. (It’s also come to
be used for any situation in which the tactic is used, but it has no legal ramifications outside war.)
SO YOU ARE FINE WITH SOMEONE ROBBING A STORE AT GUNPOINT WHILE HOLDING THEIR CHILD IN FRONT OF THEM BECAUSE IT’S NOT A WAR OR ARMED ”CONFLICT ”?
You חברה are barking up the wrong tree here.
I personally know a specific case where a prominent rav told a pregnant teenager to abort. Granted it was around the empty day mark. But In dealing with that one specific instance I learned that unfortunately this is way more common than we would like it to be.
And I don’t usually deal with these issues.
So your not going to make any points by questioning the generality of abortion taking place in our communities with heterim.
It’s the idea that abortion wherever, whenever, for whatever reason, is more in line with Torah View, than , strict only in life threatened cases ,allowed, that doesn’t sit well with me.
Neither match. One allows murder. The other outlaws what should be permitted.
I believe דינים allows them to be more מחמיר than the Torah. Not more lenient.
Ubiq seems to disagree
So we fear kid’s death?
Emotional abuse requires long term for it to be problematic.
So one more day while we investigate usually won’t make a difference.
However physical abuse, during that day the kid could be maimed for life, or dead.
I’m betting zero
That was very good
True the president has some effect on the morals of our country
But Hollywood has much more effect.
Whew you have a democrat party that will demonize the president before he says or does anything, shame has been lost, honesty has been lost
When you have a film industry that glorifies murder mayhem and debauchery, society has been lost. The president is but a tiny part in the moral fabric of society when compare to those titans.
On the other hand the president sets actual policy for the country. Over there the president has out sized influence.
So when I need to chose a president if my choices are
Bad morals but good policy Vs good morals but bad policy,
Good policy wins hands down.
All the more so that my choice really is bad morals with good policy vs bad morals bad policy.
I mean who am I going to choose?
Someone who is openly what the Torah calls an abomination?
Someone who doesn’t believe in personal property rights?
Someone who wants to legislate every move anyone makes? An old bumbling, perhaps, has been?
A shrill lying attention seeker who doesn’t believe in personal property rights either
Or klobuchar who I know zero about?
My post was banned
Someone committing a crime, which he knows carries a certain punishment, who commits the crime while with his children so he can then say you can’t punish me because it will leave the children in a terrible predicament.
That is classic human shield.
Does it say anywhere human shield is only if there is danger to life ?
That’s a very unusual spelling of “I’m a total idiot or troll,” but I’ll accept it.
That’s not a very sound logical argument is it?
If I’m wrong show me how if I’m not then what’s your issue?
You don’t like how it puts you on the defensive with no response??
Ubiq I’ll grant you this.
If your rendition is correct, I agree with your contention that this is no big deal
Yes and you could have made it clear right from the start had you just responded to what I wrote
The following is a clarification from that governers office
Northam’s office said in a statement on Wednesday that his comments were taken out of context and that Republicans “are trying to play politics with women’s health.”
“No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities, *************/and the governor’s comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor,************×********” Ofirah Yheskel, Northam’s spokesperson, wrote in the statement.
So he is talking about a woman who wanted a third trimester abortion, ולא הספיק השעה
So they would birth the baby
(now it’s no longer a fetus)
(now it’s a live baby)
And let the absents decide if they should keep it or kill it
And you (I never claimed this) claim this takes place daily in hospitals.
So you are actually claiming that the democrat party does infanticide.!
I only claimed they support the idea
But hey, I’ll take help from all quarters.
And of course this is good for Jews because it’s more in line with the Torah.
And since frum people, (by definition) only get an abortion with their Rav’s approval. It is to OUR (not their) advantage to have a more permissive stance on abortion in place than one the Republicans would adopt
No. It’s not to our benefit to have a government that condones and even glorifies murder.
It’s bad for us and for the society we live in.
Even in cases such as severe fetal complications, where it would be allowed in halacha it’s not mandated. So if our host country outlawed it, we would deal with it. If they disallowed it even in cases of danger to the mothers life, we would have an issue, but ultimately we would ignore it. However I don’t believe that is the case anyway.
In the democrat utopia, however they condone murder.
That is never good for us. And it’s unnecessary.
I completely disagree with you
and someone helpfully supplied the source.”
no nobody did. The source supplied id not at all refer to infaticide
Yes actually it did. You misread it at the time, based on you comment after but I dido bother to correct you.
It said, they would resuscitate the child, and then allow the parents time to decide whether to kill it or not.
In other words, give the parents the option to kill a live baby who was born a short while ago.
As per the article, time frame not established.
That’s murder. Pure and simple. Of an infant.
Or in a single word, infanticide.
It’s what I was referring to, it’s documented, and it’s on the wish list of the more radical fringe of the democrat party, which if history is any guide, means In a few years it will be mainstream democrat party platform.
Democrats the party of murder and infanticide. It’s what I said, it’s what I meant ,and I still stand by it. All I said no the other thread is that if your getting sidetracked from my main point there, then remove infanticide from the discussion, as it’s unnecessary for my point.
I never backed off, I never changed my mind,
I missed him
I’m in Brooklyn
Where can I go see him?